javahnagila wrote: 

I will not just tolerate your new av, I will wholeheartedly support it.

 maryte wrote: 
Wha?  I didn't say "state's rights."

 maryte wrote:
 
Not parsing for you? Works for me.

 oldslabsides wrote: 

 oldslabsides wrote: 

 

 maryte wrote: 
A state has no rights, only people have rights.  That so many of them choose to give them up to the state is very disturbing to me.

 oldslabsides wrote: 

Of course I accept that about you!  I sure as hell can't change how you feel.  Although I've got to wonder about your concerns that the poor state is having its rights usurped.  Oklahoma must be heaven, because state gubmint in Texas imposes on its citizenry far worse than the federal gubmint...

 maryte wrote: 
Acceptance, say, of the fact that some of us feel very threatened by the power of the state?  That some of us just want to be left alone to take responsibility for ourselves without the intrusions of a nanny state?  Just askin'...

 javahnagila wrote: 

better:  Acceptance

one word: tolerance

 zipper wrote: 
That makes at least two of us.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
I so love your communication skills and your ability to grasp the details and apply them to the big picture in a way that anyone can comprehend.

kurtster wrote:

And what if it isn't? The burden of compliance would fall on anyone doing business with the feds at any level. Or do you want to add yet another accounting/compliance requirement: state what portion of your company's income comes from federal contracting as well, documented with this form and that table and audited by this certified accounting agency, paid for out of overhead. None of which cuts the grass.

It doesn't matter that the guy cutting the grass doesn't make more than $471,000/year (and as far as I'm concerned, bully for him if he does)—he has to prove he doesn't, and proving he doesn't takes time and money. It means there's no point taking on a federal contract for a small job—you'll lose money. You need to take on lots of federal contracts or charge more for them, putting you at a disadvantage to a company that does nothing but. You're accomplishing the opposite of your intent.


I consider it both: a misguided attempt to fix a problem caused by red tape with more red tape. Motivating it by a desire to punish those who took advantage of the system Congress put in place doesn't change the outcome or punish those truly responsible. The guy cutting grass didn't get any TARP money.


I can imagine the impact on MLB: none at all. An exemption from antitrust law can be undone separately, at any time. So do that, and leave the lawn maintenance guy alone.

 
No, I wouldn't. I'd rather see each company's owners set compensation based on the value added by the employee, or the scarcity and necessity of the work s/he does. Or whatever the owners of the company want to use—it's none of our business. If they pay too much the cost of their goods and services will go up and somebody who pays less gets the job.

You want my idea? Scrap the requirements irrelevant to the actual work. Eliminate the intrusive and burdensome accounting rules that govern every minute detail of doing business with the government; rules that bloat administration within companies and make them uncompetitive with non-governmental customers.

As for TARP and other such boondoggles: even easier. Don't do it. Admit there are problems government is helpless against, and concentrate on the ones it can help with, and should help with.

 Beaker wrote: 
Yer pressin' yer luck, Canuck.

 Beaker wrote: 



Fixed your typo. 

 Beaker wrote: 
I think anyone would be hard pressed to describe my positions as either liberal or conservative.  And those libertarians?  Too conservative for me.

Beaker wrote:

 maryte wrote: 
There are at least two people around here I can think of who are far better at specifics than myself.  I don't think I was quite as general as your analogy.

 oldslabsides wrote: 

All generalities.  Like everyone at RP is a liberal. 

 maryte wrote: 
They all assume responsibilities that are not those of the national government.  They all represent the abdication of rights and state responsibilities.  They are all financed by a confiscatory system of robbery called taxation.  They are all backed by the police power of the national government.

 kurtster wrote: 
Kurt, in spite of my high ideals, you would know infinitely more about that than I.